OTTAWA — The Conservative government now says it was aware of "concerns about the state of prisons" in Afghanistan almost from the day it took office and eventually rewrote a prisoner transfer agreement as those concerns mounted.

Defence Minister Peter MacKay offered a dramatically different Tory narrative on the Afghan torture issue on Friday. This capped a week in which the government went from lampooning as Taliban "dupes" anyone who alleged prisoner abuse to claiming the government took such reports seriously from the start.

Join us tomorrow when Peter MacKay ... oh, fuck it, he's just going to make up some new shit.

P.S. For both barrels of Sassylassie's brand of dementia, check out the comments section here, where even Adrian "Raphael Alexander" MacNair has to ask her to get a grip.

P.P.S. No, seriously, why is the Privy Council Office interested in a screeching, ignorant racist like Sassylassie? That's not rhetorical -- I'm genuinely curious. Someone there clearly has way too much time on their hands. (Or, of course, that search has nothing to do with the aforementioned racist dingbat, but it's more interesting to not consider that possibility, don't you think? :-)

"The release of the government’s mid-year financial report Thursday shows it now projecting it will take in only $109 million from potash royalties and taxes – $1.8 billion below what it forecast in its spring budget...

... on a summary basis – which includes all of the operations of government including the Crowns – a deficit projected at $25 million at budget is now pegged at $1.05 billion."

If there's one thing that characterizes the modern conservative, it's their utter inability to argue honestly or in good faith. Instead, every rebuttal is some sleazy variation of the form, "So what you're saying is ...", followed by precisely what the other party wasn't saying. I call it the "Twatsification" of discourse, and here's the latest disgusting example from Canadian PM Stephen Waste-of-skin:

“Let me just say this: living as we do, in a time when some in the political arena do not hesitate before throwing the most serious of allegations at our men and women in uniform, based on the most flimsy of evidence, remember that Canadians from coast to coast to coast are proud of you and stand behind you, and I am proud of you, and I stand beside you.”

How noble. How patriotic. And how totally, totally dishonest since Harper knows full well that the outrage he's hearing is not directed at the troops. It is, in fact, directed at him. And his flunkies. However, he simply chooses to misinterpret what he hears and responds to accusations that no one's ever made. And with these people, it's a pattern.

Recall Conservative MP Shelly Glover and her attempt to saturate a Manitoba school division with Conservative propaganda:

St. Boniface riding Tory MP Shelly Glover recently offered students free water bottles in Manitoba's Louis Riel school division, but trustees turned Glover down when they learned the bottles would bear the Conservatives' logo.

"The bottles were personalized and had her name and the Conservative logo," Louis Riel school board chairwoman Marilyn Seguire said Thursday, referring to Glover. "It was clear it was an issue in terms of our own policy."

That policy bans any political materials in classrooms that promote a single individual or party.

This would seem to be cut-and-dried -- thanks, but no propaganda, a policy that would be applied to any political party. And how did Glover respond? Unsurprisingly, in bad faith:

"It's really disappointing to see a media outlet exploit that and turn it into a story where it wasn't a positive story, but it should have been a positive story," she said. "I'm still going to work with the school division to try to make sure that we give those kids incentives and rewards when they speak French." ...

"Whether or not the Conservative logo is on paraphernalia . . . I believe the issue should be that we are encouraging our children to do better."

And yes, Shelly, that's very noble but no one was protesting the idea of encouraging students to do better. They were protesting the propaganda, but Shelly is much happier distorting reality and bitching about a complaint that no one was making.

Then there was Federal Science Minister and scientific illiterate Gary Goodyear, who thoroughly stepped in it when he waffled on the subject of biological evolution, then played the whiny martyr card:

"I'm not going to answer that question," Goodyear, federal minister of state for science and technology, told the Globe and Mail in an article published Tuesday. "I am a Christian, and I don't think anybody asking a question about my religion is appropriate."

But Gary, you weaselly little shit, no one was taking you to task for your religious beliefs. They were pounding on you because, for being the federal Science Minister, you were appallingly ignorant about science. Once again, one of Harper's sleazy cronies, arguing in bad faith.

It's relentless. You simply can't have an honest discussion with these people. Every position is mangled, misrepresented and distorted beyond recognition. It's the perpetual comeback of, "So what you're saying is ..." followed by rubbish and lies.

It is the Twatsification of public discourse. And regular readers here will know exactly of what I speak. Feel free to supply your own examples in the comments section.

P.S. Some people call it "conflation." Eh, douchebagitude by any other name ...

And the intellectual meltdown over at BloggingTory-Ville continues, with Brenda/"Hunter" getting just ... weird:

Get A Life Lefties! You Sick Little Trolls!

Because of the filthy language used by Liberal progressives, I have had to put my blog on comment moderation, again.

You know, if I was the "Liberal" Party of Canada, I might be giving Brenda a phone call right about now. Or having my lawyer do it for me. But I digress. The entertainment value starts to climb:

CAUTION! Profane language for one time only, to prove a point about lefties and their oh so progressive ideas about female Conservative bloggers.

So there's Brenda, a relentless censor of her own comments section, now violating her own principles and publishing alleged profanity to make a point. And here's where you should swallow your coffee and void your bladder first, to avoid any potential accidents:

Question is, should I be calling the police on this?

Yes, Brenda, you should, and please tape that call because I'm guessing it would go viral on YouTube within seconds:

"So, let me get this straight, ma'am. You have a blog. And you have a comments section on that blog. And you have complete and total control over who's allowed to comment there? And you want to report, um, anonymous people who left rude comments that you deliberately and explicitly allowed to be published? Do I have that right?"

When I put comment moderation on, the trolls yell about "freedom of speech" and how I am denying them their rights.

We have done no such thing. We have never denied Brenda's freedom to moderate or censor her blog any way she wishes. As she and so many of her other cowardly hypocritical BT colleagues like to say all the time, "My blog, my rules." Which is entirely true -- it's Brenda's blog and she can run it any way she wants, and no one I recall has ever denied that.

We do, however, have the right to accuse her of gross hypocrisy, as she ruthlessly quashes any dissent while bleating on about her love of "free speech." We have every right to make that accusation, and we have.

The rest of that post is similarly worthless, self-pitying tripe, capped by Justin "Raging Roids" Hoffer's comment concerning his intellectual superiority. Must be read to be believed.

P.S. Just in case you were curious, this is what happens when you try to engage Brenda in legitimate, intellectual discourse. It's not pretty.

"Dodo" has a new project, which will see her responding to everyone's "Happy Holidays" with a "Piss off, you dirty Muslim!"

The delicious irony is that she calls out Zellers by name while, down in the lower right, she has a Google ad promoting -- you guessed it -- Zellers.

What do you call someone who is incapable of seeing even the most painfully obvious consequences of their ideas? A conservative.AFTERSNARK: I'm sure Maria's friends are relieved that there's a good chance she won't be shopping at FoodBasics for her Christmas gifts. Maybe they'll get something classier than a 5-pack of 50% discount "Best before yesterday" Johnsonville Brats this year.

THE STUPID THAT KEEPS ON STUPIDING: It's hilarious that Maria is ready to go full-metal boycott harpy on Wal-Mart's ass when, only two days ago:

I'd point out the howling hypocrisy to Maria, but I'm guessing her only response would be a puzzled, "I don't get it. What's your point?"

As a followup to that last post, I would be remiss if I didn't send readers (once again) to one of the funniest Kathy Shaidle beatdowns in bloggydom here. What I had never noticed until now was a comment over there by the blogger himself:

... Shaidle implied that some Mark Steyn fansite sent a lot of traffic this way ... but it only sent a few hits and was completely swamped by visitors from eye, Kinsella and Canadian cynic.

Or it could be that I published the original article, let it sit for a while, went back, thought, "You know, that could be snarkier, I can do better than that." And changed it.

It's actually painful when you have to explain something that trivial. Check back later when I might have come up with a better punchline to this post.

AFTERSNARK: It's entertaining to hear Twatsy whinging on about a punchline quietly changing when his mentor, idol and role model Richard "NAMBLA" Evans, some months ago, vanished his entire blog. The whole thing. In its entirety. All of it. Without a trace. Racism, creepy child rape obsession, soft core porn and all.

No, I refuse to link over there; those of you who have less than fond memories of NAMBLA Dick know where his blog was, and if you've popped by there any time over the last several months, you know that it's been "Under Construction" this whole time.

So before Twatsy starts whinging on about memory holes, he might want to check in with his hero and sensei NAMBLA Dick and see whassup over there. It's just a thought. Then he can go give Sandy Crux the spanking she deserves.

Shorter psychotically-deranged Maria "Dodo" Nunes: "Oh, man, first there was this, uh, female, and she said this mean thing about CC and then she left the Blogging Tories -- no, not her, someone else -- but she's got all these juicy "tit-bits" about some other people who hang out at this place and who have names -- well, not really names, they're just ones I made up. Is that awesome or what!?"

Then I popped over to read JJ, LC and Impolitical. There's a difference between chicks in the right and left bloggyspheres. Have you noticed that? I've noticed that.

P.S. The best part of Maria's cringe-inducing rant:

She is revolted by CC's attacks on the females at Blogging Tories ...

Maria has a point and, henceforth, I promise to be more polite and genteel to the fragile wallflowers that are Adrian MacNair, Justin "Raging Roids" Hoffer, "Neo 'Dead Blacks Amuse Me' Conservative", Jonathan Strong, Wayne, Jonathan Narvey, "The Iceman," Dick Ball, ChuckerCanuck, Jabba the Roy and the rest of the delicate ladies over there. I understand they're very sensitive.

I contacted a spokeswoman for CBSA and they explained that while they cannot comment on specific cases, “all persons seeking entry into Canada must meet all requirements” set out by the CBSA. Applicants for entry must not have a record of criminality, for example...

The CBSA spokeswoman also told me that criminality is certainly a red flag when it comes to determining a person’s fitness for admissibility.

And while the CBSA's spokesweasel clearly didn't get into details, it's just as clear that there was an interview involving Taylor and someone from the CBSA. I find that fascinating, and when it comes time to figure out whose ass should be on the line for this blatant violation of Goodman's rights, I'd like someone to ask why Taylor was gifted with a chat when everyone else was told to take a hike.

Considering that you can never get Canadian Jewish Congress CEO Bernie Farber to ever shut the hell up about anti-Semitism, it's pretty rich for him to suggest he doesn't want to get involved when someone is inaccurately smeared as an anti-Semite:

Bernie Farber, the CEO of the Canadian Jewish Congress, says he's reluctant to wade in to what he calls a political bun fight.

"As far as we are concerned as a community, fighting anti-Semitism and terrorism and supporting Israel have been and should continue to be a unifying theme in Canadian politics."

Well, fuck you, Bernie, you useless douchebag. if you're going to bitch, whine, piss and moan about anti-Semitism 25 hours a day, then you also have an obligation to "wade in" and try to calm the waters when someone is unfairly tarred with that accusation.

The announcement of next summer's visit came after she met Prime Minister Stephen Harper at the Commonwealth summit in Trinidad and Tobago on Friday.

"The Crown endures as a symbol of our unique Canadian identity, uniting Canadians of every background and every region," Harper said. "Canadians hold Her Majesty and the royal family in deep affection and high regard, a sentiment which is clearly mutual."

The Canadian government will have a $50 billion deficit this year and people are going on about Prince Charles and Camila's visit costing $2.6 million?

That's. Just. Awesome. Here, let me tighten that up a bit:

"Geez, people, my hero Stephen Harper has so brutally and savagely fucked up the economy that, at this point, $2.6 million is just a rounding error. Let it go."

Blogging Tory co-founder Captain Canada Stephen "I'm all about the democracy, law and order and free speech!" Taylor temporarily stuffs his ethics and principles into his sock drawer in order to smear Amy Goodman:

Amy Goodman sort of inadmissible to Canada?

... I contacted a spokeswoman for CBSA and they explained that while they cannot comment on specific cases, “all persons seeking entry into Canada must meet all requirements” set out by the CBSA. Applicants for entry must not have a record of criminality, for example.

Really, Steve? Is that the new standard for denial? A nebulous, ill-defined "record of criminality" which makes someone "sort of" inadmissible? Let's keep reading:

I’d wondered if Amy Goodman had ever been arrested since I’ve known her to be something of an activist on issues. A quick Google search revealed that she had been arrested at the Republican National Convention in 2008 for “conspiracy to riot”.

Steve has a point. Oh, wait, he doesn't:

The charges were eventually dropped against Goodman as the St. Paul City Attorney’s office refused to prosecute.

But an actual lack of criminal conviction is just an annoying detail for Law-and-Order Boy:

However, it is unclear as to whether charges without conviction is enough to create a “lookout” in the CBSA database. The CBSA spokeswoman also told me that criminality is certainly a red flag when it comes to determining a person’s fitness for admissibility.

Given the unprecedented security that is being put in place for the 2010 games, a less than perfect history with law enforcement may have given agents more pause when considering Goodman.

Stephen Taylor: A man of principles. And if you don't like his principles, well, he's got others.

P.S. You do have to be amused by someone who is completely indifferent to potential Geneva Conventions war crimes being committed by his beloved Stephen Harper Party of Canada being terribly, terribly concerned about the temporary and unjustified detention of a reporter at a political convention in another country.

If the cognitive dissonance were any worse, I swear it would cause some of Stephen's internal organs to just start shutting down.AFTERSNARK: Just for fun, let's re-examine that earlier passage from Captain Canada:

I contacted a spokeswoman for CBSA and they explained that while they cannot comment on specific cases, “all persons seeking entry into Canada must meet all requirements” set out by the CBSA. Applicants for entry must not have a record of criminality, for example.

Really, Stephen? They must meet all requirements? They must not have a "record of criminality?" This would seem to be an open-and-shut case, wouldn't it, Steve?

Either Goodman had a "record of criminality," whereupon she should have immediately been sent packing. Or she didn't have such a record. By your own words, Steve, and based on what you claim the CBSA told you, the fact that they (finally) allowed Goodman entry means that she could not possibly have had a "record of criminality." Your words, Steve -- your position.

And yet, Steve, you seem perfectly fine with a prominent journalist being detained at the border based on what you openly admit could not possibly have been a valid reason. See, Steve, that's what happens when you try to use logic and reason when you're just not used to it. Bad things happen.

Then there's your BTs' collective attitude of total cowardice when it comes to actual intellectual discourse. You know, the ruthless and relentless censorship of their comments sections whenever someone has the nerve to disagree with them.

Yes, Steve, there's a great deal there to be proud of. Especially, I think, "Neo Conservative." The next time you get the chance, I really think you should regale the crowd with hilarious, knee-slapping stories of black people getting murdered and how wickedly funny that is. I'm sure that would go over well.

I'd first make sure there were no black people in the audience, though. I've heard they have no sense of humour.

Well, actually, I do. Over at the Blogging Fundamentalist Christians Tories, lead preacher Dick Ball reports back from The Big Easy, and lets us secular naturalists know why we suck:

The focus on scientific naturalism has resulted in the emergence of a new personality type: "the Empty Self"* inordinately individualistic* infantile* passively addicted to entertainment and consumption* can't give themselves to something bigger -- no one would know what that would be

Yes, that would be a Blogging Tory, accusing scientific naturalists of being "infantile." It doesn't get any funnier unless it's "Hunter" or "Dodo" accusing others of being stupid.

U.S. journalist grilled at Canada border crossingOfficials demanded to know what she would say publicly about 2010 Olympics

U.S. journalist Amy Goodman said she was stopped at a Canadian border crossing south of Vancouver on Wednesday and questioned for 90 minutes by authorities concerned she was coming to Canada to speak against the Olympics.

Goodman says Canadian Border Services Agency officials ultimately allowed her to enter Canada but returned her passport with a document demanding she leave the country within 48 hours.

At which point Canada's free speech warriors leapt from their bassinets and onto their Big Wheels and ... and ...

Fresh off of bitching and moaning that the CBC was ignoring the recent climate change "scandal," Blogging Tory JoJo shifts gears to bitch and moan that they are finally covering it, just not the way she would like.

Once again, CBC's "Tapestry" program flushes an hour down the crapper, this time gifting it to the vapid and useless "theologian" Karen Armstrong. I'd waste a few minutes intellectually gutting her like a mackerel but, luckily for me, that's already been done. Over here, PZ Myers systematically feeds Armstrong's philosophy through the meat grinder while, here, Richard Dawkins exposes Armstrong's embarrassing lack of anything resembling meaningful content, particularly in his scathing conclusion:

Now, there is a certain class of sophisticated modern theologian who will say something like this: "Good heavens, of course we are not so naive or simplistic as to care whether God exists. Existence is such a 19th-century preoccupation! It doesn't matter whether God exists in a scientific sense. What matters is whether he exists for you or for me. If God is real for you, who cares whether science has made him redundant? Such arrogance! Such elitism."

Well, if that's what floats your canoe, you'll be paddling it up a very lonely creek. The mainstream belief of the world's peoples is very clear. They believe in God, and that means they believe he exists in objective reality, just as surely as the Rock of Gibraltar exists. If sophisticated theologians or postmodern relativists think they are rescuing God from the redundancy scrap-heap by downplaying the importance of existence, they should think again. Tell the congregation of a church or mosque that existence is too vulgar an attribute to fasten onto their God, and they will brand you an atheist. They'll be right.

Put more concisely, if the best defense you have for your particular deity is that, it doesn't matter if he really exists as long as he exists for you, well, that's what modern medications and therapy sessions were pretty much invented for, wouldn't you say?

I don't doubt that there are Conservatives who like Sarah Palin. I like her as a person, and I agree with some of her opinions. But being down in the United States, I have been listening to some Michael Savage, a right wing talk show host who hardly toes the Conservative Party line. His theory is that a lot of the people who are advocating a Palin Presidency are in fact far left Liberals. People who want Palin on a Presidential ticket, because they know that she can't win the center. The left wants Palin to win the nomination for 2012, because she is grossly inexperienced and is polarizing in the center where most of the votes are.

Crap. Our cover's been blown. Iceman has ferreted out our closely-held, diabolical, super-duper, top secret, fingers-crossed conspiracy to get Palin on the Republican ticket in 2012, only because we know she'd get obliterated like a mouse under a rotary mower. That Iceman. He's so clever. You just can't sneak anything by him, can you?

Tune in next week when Iceman excitedly blogs that he's heard Barack Obama might not have been born in the U.S. and therefore -- ZOMG!!1!!111!! -- might not be constitutionally eligible to serve as President but he's going to look into that and he'll get back to us. He's heard that some lawyer named Orly Taitz has some dynamite information on that score.

Thursday, November 26, 2009

Al-Jazeera English, the English-language service of the Qatar-based broadcaster, has been approved for distribution via satellite in Canada.

Of course, you first have to assuage the concerns of the right people:

Jewish concerns

The Canadian Jewish Congress and B'nai Brith Canada had expressed concerns about how balanced Al-Jazeera's reporting would be, but they neither opposed nor supported the application. The Jewish organizations instead urged vigilance in case the news service engages in Holocaust denial or other anti-Semitic statements.

The CJC also urged the CRTC to ensure Al-Jazeera English remains independent from its Arabic-language counterpart.

Good thinking. It's important to let the CRTC know that you're not a big fan of people saying things you don't like. That's getting dangerously close to free speech and journalistic independence and, God knows, we can't have that setting an ugly trend.

And who's this?

A group called Honest Reporting Canada cited two examples of Al-Jazeera English's journalism that it said did not meet Canadian standards of accuracy and balance, but it did not officially oppose the application.

... unleashed. I'm thinking of a "FakePatrickRoss" Twitter account. It would be like a real Patrick Ross Twitter account, except that every tweet would begin with "So what you're saying is, ...", followed by something incredibly fucking stupid and dishonest.

Shorter Stephen Harper: "Having classified everything we possibly could regarding Afghanistan detainess and torture in order to prevent Richard Colvin from being able to produce any supporting documentation for his claims, we can now dismiss Richard Colvin as having no supporting documentation for his claims."

Over at Brenda's, commenter John Cross asks a delightfully civil question of Brenda's regular readers, who are -- the lot of them -- as insufferably retarded as she is:

As someone interested in the science, I keep asking what science does this change. I can find nothing about the radiation physics or CO2 concentrations in the e-mails.

Thanks,John

Unsurprisingly, no one rises to the intellectual challenge so, a few hours later, John tries again:

Bec: If the science has been questioned, please point to the specific e-mails that discuss radiation physics in regards to CO2.

Thanks,John

at which point, commenter "Blame Crash" has had quite enough of this smarmy, high-falutin', academic book larnin':

And tell us John, would any answer, or any truth, result in anything except a repeat of your amateur diversionary comment? I think not.

which we can all safely assume means that BC is a moron and has no idea what the answer is. But all this suggests a simple challenge.

If Canada's intellectually-crippled dingbats, yahoos and whackjobs seriously think that the recently hacked e-mails represent some sort of "smoking gun" with respect to the fraud of climate change, then I propose that they post what represents, in all of those e-mails, what they consider to be the smokingest gun of all.

To no one's surprise, these scientifically illiterate yahoos have been creaming themselves over the thousands and thousands of lines of hacked e-mail, without actually pointing to any specific passage that proves their point. So here's their chance.

Let's have them take their time, peruse the e-mails in question and, out of all of that, select the single line/passage/paragraph/excerpt that they think represents an absolutely devastating refutation of climate change. Since they all seem so giddy with victory, surely it won't be hard to produce a single piece of evidence to bolster their spittle-flecked screeching. That's fair, isn't it? But there are going to be a few conditions.

First, I'm after one example. I'm not interested in the "shotgun" approach, during which you fling about pointers at countless pieces of text, hoping to inundate the poor reader with sheer quantity. If your case is as strong as you claim, then it should be easy for you to find what you think is the absolutely best piece of evidence there is.

Second, you will not be allowed to annotate or interpret your example. What you provide should be capable of standing on its own, without any help from you. The text you quote should be clear and unambiguous. You will not be allowed to reinterpret, redefine, mangle or sodomize the English language in order to have it mean what you want it to mean. In short, you will not be allowed to pull a "Patrick Ross."

And, finally, once you've taken all the time you want to select your favourite smoking gun, and you publish it, and we here in Not-Crazy-Ville demonstrate that it is utter shash, you will accept your defeat gracefully, and not run off shrieking, "Oh, yeah ... well there's this other example that's even better." No. You can have as much time as you want to make your choice, but once you've made it, you don't get to start moving goalposts and being a sore loser.

So ... howzabout? Hunter? Dodo? Kate? All of you have been creaming yourselves over these e-mails as if you actually understood the science (and we all know that that's pure bollocks). So, let's see it. Take your time. And choose carefully. And when you're done, drop your pick in the comments section, at which point my regular commenters will be happy to go to town on it.

OTTAWA – Prime Minister Stephen Harper moved Tuesday to calm the political storm surrounding the handover of Afghan prisoners, vowing to release all "legally available" documents related to the matter.

And the instant I read that carefully-qualified promise, I said to myself, "All Harper's going to do now is frantically classify anything he doesn't want public, which will -- by definition -- make them no longer 'legally available.' Problem solved."

I should have predicted that publicly when it occurred to me, 'cuz I would have looked like a freakin' genius:

Feds bar whistleblower diplomat from handing over torture documents to MPsBy Murray Brewster, The Canadian Press

OTTAWA - The federal government is blocking whistleblowing diplomat Richard Colvin from giving documents to a special House of Commons committee investigating Afghan torture.

The revelation Wednesday came one day after Prime Minister Stephen Harper pledged that the committee would get "all legally-available" documents in order to carry out its investigation.

Justice Department lawyers have told Colvin - through the Foreign Affairs Department - that they do not accept the view that testimony before Parliament is exempt from national security provisions of the Canada Evidence Act.

As a result, Colvin's lawyer has written to the committee advising that Colvin won't be able to provide documents to Parliament as he was instructed to do last week...

Violating Section 38 of the Canada Evidence Act can be punishable by five years in prison.

* A Public Sector Integrity Commissioner with the power to enforce the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act. * A new, independent tribunal with the power to order remedies and discipline. * Expanded whistleblower protection for all Canadians who report government wrongdoing. * More public information on wrongdoing.

Wednesday, November 25, 2009

OTTAWA — Three generals declared Wednesday that there was no mention of the word "torture" in reports from a senior diplomat who asserts that he repeatedly warned the government against surrendering Afghan detainees to local authorities because they would almost certainly be abused.

Take it away, Gonzo:

AFTERSNARK: Now that the Prime Minister, his immediate underlings and all three of those generals have disavowed any knowledge of this bad craziness, it's clear that the blame is simply being pushed further down the food chain until someone of little consequence is going to be thrown under a bus. Yes, someone's ass is going to be grass.

Over at Special Ed Central, Captain Canada and self-described "scientist" Stephen Taylor drags out the old argument from authority and proceeds to give long-discredited hack Ross McKitrick the fellating he so richly deserves.

Good morning, boys and girls, and here's your skill-testing question for the day: Which Blogging Tory, rationalizing his long-time use of a pseudonym to protect his identity, recently wrote the following:

... I decided to use [a pseudonym] when I was confronted with a rather disturbing decision involving a Neo-Nazi and a threat on my life.

Hint: This would be the same Blogging Tory who, not that long ago, was absolutely gleeful in publishing your humble scribe's picture, as well as links to address, phone number and other personal information, despite his being well aware of his Blogging Tory colleagues' unnerving obsession with threats and physical violence.

And here's Stephen Harper, looking to fuck over democracy, accountability and transparency one more time. First, there's the setup:

David Mulroney was a senior adviser on Afghanistan at the time Colvin said he was sending his crucial reports and when he was told by superiors to stop producing written material on the issue.

Mulroney, now ambassador to China, said he wants to testify, because of the "very serious" allegations made last week.

"Some touched directly upon my work, that of my colleagues and of the government of Canada. I would welcome the opportunity to address these allegations and set the record straight."

Awesome. David Mulroney wants to testify. That's just super. And the committee seems more than happy to hear him, as long as they get a chance to prepare properly:

Some MPs have said Mulroney's appearance should be put off until they get ocuments from the government and can ask informed questions.

A perfectly reasonable proposal, unless you're the fecal smear that walks like a man, Stephen Harper:

But Harper dismissed that as "petty political games."

"I hope the committee, if it's serious, will hear testimony from all who want to testify," he said.

Not to be indelicate, but the committee should tell David Mulroney that they appreciate his co-operation and will be slotting him in as soon as it's convenient, and they should tell Stephen Harper that he can fuck off, go get a motel room with Dean Del Mastro, two albino trampolinists, a diseased goat and a case of Astroglide, and they'll call him if they need him.

Here's Blogging Tory and hysterically credulous Christian apologist Richard Ball, practically squeezing out a load due to the sheer excitement of it all:

NEVER call someone a vegetable

... This comes to [sic] late to help Terry [sic] Schiavo who was, effectively, murdered (or something very close to it) with the support of a substantial percentage of American society.

I know ... let's do something very un-Dick Ball-like, follow that link and, you know, read what we find:

'I screamed, but there was nothing to hear': Man trapped in 23-year 'coma' reveals horror of being unable to tell doctors he was conscious

Yes, that is awesomely impressive. However, unlike Mr. Ball, we will not stop at the title. We will continue reading because, well, we here at CC HQ are not irresponsible, scientifically illiterate idiots. Onward:

A car crash victim has spoken of the horror he endured for 23 years after he was misdiagnosed as being in a coma when he was conscious the whole time.

Rom Houben, trapped in his paralysed body after a car crash, described his real-life nightmare as he screamed to doctors that he could hear them - but could make no sound.

'I screamed, but there was nothing to hear,' said Mr Houben, now 46, who doctors thought was in a persistent vegatative state.

Wait for it ... wait for it ... wait for it ... ah, there it is:

'I dreamed myself away,' he added, tapping his tale out with the aid of a computer.

I could lovingly eviscerate this obvious example of facilitated communication but I'll just give props to long-time CC HQ commenter Stimpson who starts us off here, then pop over to PZ's take on it here, then (as PZ suggests) go watch the video here which makes it disgustingly obvious what a load of bollocks this is, then (if you want) pop back to the Daily Mail article, where the commenters have clearly had enough of this farce:

I am glad people are pointing out that this is hoax. The real question is how can media be so easily duped? All you have to do is watch a video and you can see the helper is really the one doing the typing. How can we force the media produces to think a little before they publish or broadcast nonsense? ...

I have seen a whole room full of profoundly Austistic people apparently using facilitated communication to spout advanced poetry. These people were not even looking at the keyboards they were 'using'. Carers were directing the hand (whether knowingly or not) to type out complicated messages to the outside world. This is sick and a terrible abuse of the persons human rights. How dare they put words in someone's mouth. In some cases it may be a totally appropriate tool ( I know people with cerebral palsy who have physical disabilities only and benefit greatly from similar ideas - but with much less facilitation! - if the hand needs total guiding we should be very suspicious of who the message is coming from...

This IS a hoax. Please stop. It's called "facilitated communication" and was debunked YEARS ago. Many other have beaten me to it but I am repeating to make sure these terrible false hope stories of him communicating keep spreading through the media. It's not true. There IS brain activity similar to a fully conscious person but there ISN'T communication via a keyboard. ...

This is a hoax, as are most cases of so-called facilitated communication. I can't believe mainstream media is buying this story. ...

In other news, Blogging Tory Dick Ball finally wrote something coherent and intelligent but, curiously, it required the use of a computer and a facilitator who wasn't a moron.

BY THE WAY, there is a trivially simple way to verify all of this one way or the other. Note, from the Daily Mail article, the utterly vapid, Hallmarkian content of Houben's "statements":

" ... I dreamed myself away ... All that time I just literally dreamed of a better life. Frustration is too small a word to describe what I felt."

Generic, content-free rubbish. Instead, why not ask Houben to tap out the answers to some simple questions that only he (but not the assisting facilitator) would know. What were his parents and grandparents names? What were the names of his pets? What dojo did he attend for his martial arts training? Questions that would resolve this in a matter of seconds.

Instead, what we get is Oprah-style pap, designed specifically to gull the rubes. And, by George, it did work, didn't it? At least for a day or two.

P.S. PZ also reminds me of an even easier way to debunk this idiocy: Ask Houben to identify objects that are visible only to him and not the facilitator. As I said, this could all be settled in, literally, seconds.

Tuesday, November 24, 2009

You have, of course, been following the recent misadventures of Patrick "Mullet Boy" Ross, including his savage intellectual beatdown at the hands of one David Climenhaga in the comments section there (in which he gets slapped around as "Patrick Ross," then reappears under a new identity of "Sparky" in order to give the impression that he has friends or something). But just when you thought he couldn't self-immolate any further, well, a little birdie sends me the following screencap of the links at the bottom of an article that Twatsy himself wrote about Janine Krieber over at the "Nexus of Dumbassitude":

Pause to truly drink in the hilarity of Twatsy writing a post about Krieber and (unintentionally, I'm sure) accompanying that post with a link to the very article at which he got wickedly spanked only two days ago.

You can't make this up. Seriously, you can't. As intellectually creative as I am, even I couldn't have dreamed up something that made Twatsy look like more of a drooling buffoon than that.

In my defence, I spent a total of 12 hours yesterday in proposal review and pricing meetings and was more than a little squirrelly by the time I got out. But I can totally make it up to my favourite ape cuz I’m in the process of getting the bestest present evah.

What is it you may ask? Why, just a little series called "Farscape" -- yes, that would be the entire box set.

It's like the Three Stooges meets The Lucy Show ... or some analogy equally demeaning:

Fox News Threatens Pink Slips For On-Screen Errors

After a rash of mistakes and apologies over the past weeks, Fox News has sent a memo to employees announcing a new "zero tolerance" policy for on-screen errors...

Fox has had three much-noticed errors in the past few weeks. First, Sean Hannity used misleading footage to beef up attendance numbers at a Capitol Hill tea party rally -- an incident that caught the attention of the Daily Show's Jon Stewart, forcing Hannity to apologize on air.

Then, last week, one of the midday news shows aired footage of an old Sarah Palin campaign rally to show the "crowds" at her current book tour. An anchor apologized a day later, and Fox blamed a "production error."

Finally, in another segment about Palin's book, the network showed the cover of a satire book called "Going Rouge" instead of her actual memoir, "Going Rogue."

Tune in next week when Fox once again dishonestly inflates the attendance at another wingnut gathering. That will be due to a "production error." You read it here first.

I'm rather enjoying the irreverence here -- might have to make that a regular read. And, yes, Mr. Climenhaga has been suitably cautioned about the pathological dishonesty and lack of ethics that is Patrick "Twatsy" Ross, so he'll be on the lookout for any comments from "Sparky" or "mahmood" and deal with them accordingly.

And here's the payoff. That's right, kids ... that's Patrick, going after David Climenhaga, getting his panties yanked down in public and spanked soundly, then returning under his "Sparky" persona to resume the attack. This is apparently how honest, intellectual discourse works in Twatsy's world -- passing himself off as other people.

Stay classy, Twatsy. We wouldn't expect any less.

P.S. If Twatsy gets tired of passing himself off as Sparky, I suspect he will simply go back to being "mahmood."

OHMIGODOHMIGODOHMIGOD, this is priceless!!1!11!11! Now that he's been busted as the sleazy, dishonest twerp that he is, Ross has frantically edited the profile of that bogus account and changed the name on it from "Sparky" to "Patrick Ross," undoubtedly in the hope that he can now claim that it said "Patrick Ross" all along and that no one will notice.

Truly, the douchebaggery that keeps on giving. And giving. And giving ...

For quite some time, numerous progressives have made the argument that, even if you don't support Canada's mission in Afghanistan, you can still support the troops themselves. There was -- quite correctly -- a careful distinction made between supporting Canada's military men and women, versus supporting the idiotic and ill-defined clusterfuck that is Afghanistan. And I was one of those people. I'm now here to tell you that I no longer support Canada's military. No, wait, hear me out.

At this point, it is beyond question that some members of Canada's military are guilty of war crimes. The testimony of one Richard Colvin, increasingly corroborated by many others, is simply irrefutable. Some members of the Canadian military -- in handing over Afghani detainees that they suspected full well were going to be tortured -- are undeniably guilty of war crimes. There's simply no question anymore, and it's pointless denying it.

But are all of Canada's military guilty of those same war crimes? Of course not, don't be silly, what a ridiculous thing to say. Unfortunately, here's the sticking point.

Canada's military has now had its reputation smeared in a particularly ugly way, and the only way to restore it is with a fair and thorough investigation, to ferret out the criminals who are responsible. That sounds simple enough -- find and punish the culprits and, in the process, clear everyone else who didn't have anything to do with it. Ah, but there's the rub.

Because the Stephen Harper Party of Canada has no interest in an investigation. Or a public inquiry. And in refusing to figure who is responsible, Canada's Conservatives have implicitly condemned everyone in uniform to being a war criminal.

Is that fair? Probably not. But there are lots of occasions where guilt has to be a collective thing. If you can't punish the actual lawbreaker, sadly, everyone's going to pay the price. And if the Harperistas insist on covering for the crooks and refusing to hold anyone accountable, then everyone is going down with that particular ship.

Again, is that fair? No, not really. But it's the only option left to us. Either we learn who's really responsible for obvious war crimes and punish them, or the entire military takes it on the chin. And it's painfully clear that Stephen Harper, rather than try to get to the bottom of this, is more than happy to hang Canada's entire military out to dry.

So, not to put to fine a point on it, but if no one's interested in identifying the specific people who broke the laws we're discussing here, then Canada's entire military can piss off. I have no illusions about what effect my public disapproval will have. Precisely none, of course. It's not as if anyone in a position of power gives a crap about what I think, and I'm fairly sure my loss of confidence will increase the danger to our soldiers overseas in no measurable way whatsoever. But unless someone is held accountable, I have no choice but to hold everyone accountable. Because that's the only choice Stephen Harper has left me with.

The right-wing, idiot outrage based on this post will, of course, be swift and savage, coming from precisely those people who have vowed to defend "free speech" to the death, but where does that CC get off saying stuff like that? ("free speech" being generally reserved for their opinions but no one else's). But I don't see any option here. Either the rot in Canada's military is located and removed, or it's all rot. There is no door number three.

And given how moderately pissed I am at the moment, we'll give A. Whitney Brown the last word. Just because.